No. 5-534 / 04-1610Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed August 31, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, David H. Sivright, Jr., Judge.
Thomas William Kunde appeals his conviction, following jury trial, for first-degree arson. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and James Tomka, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, Michael L. Wolf, County Attorney, and Gary P. Strausser, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
MILLER, J.
Thomas William Kunde appeals his conviction, following jury trial, for first-degree arson. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
The record reveals the following facts. In the summer of 2003 Kunde, Raymond Cole, and some other men built a cabin in rural Clinton County for Maury Hill. The cabin was located on Highway 67 south of the town of Folletts and north of the Scott County towns of Princeton and LeClaire. It was a warm weather cabin furnished with electricity and running water but heated only by electric space heaters.
Later in 2003 Kunde and Cole did a siding job together which resulted in a falling-out between the two men. According to Cole, when he got paid for the work he kept more than half of the money because Kunde did not finish the job. However, Kunde believed that Cole owed him $550 from that job. Kunde had several hundred dollars worth of Cole’s tools in his truck when the dispute arose. Kunde kept the tools thinking that Cole would pay him what he owed him in order to get his tools back. Cole testified, however, he never contacted Kunde to get the tools back because Kunde was known to have a bad temper.
Shortly after this incident Cole left for Florida where he remained until the spring of 2004 when he returned to Iowa. When Cole returned to Iowa he stayed at Hill’s cabin during the first few days of April 2004 in order to do some plumbing work, clean up the cabin, and clear brush from the neighboring lot which Hill was considering buying. Kunde was living with his girlfriend, Katherine Beuse, and her daughter, April, in LeClaire at this time. He was doing yard work in Folletts, both at the B S General Store and on the property of one of the store owners. Cristina Lyons testified that around this time she had a conversation with Kunde at the B S bar. Lyons told Kunde that Cole was back in town. Kunde seemed interested and asked if Lyons had talked to Cole or knew where he was staying. She had talked to Cole, but did not know where he was staying. Kunde told her he had been looking for Cole because Cole had been out of town and had owed him money for quite some time.
Beuse testified Kunde was very angry because Cole had “stiffed him” on the siding job. She stated that Kunde had brought the subject up a lot, and had looked for Cole but could not find him. Beuse also testified that on April 3, 2004, Kunde, Beuse, and April were driving past Hill’s cabin on their way from LeClaire to Folletts when April said, “Mom, look, there is Ray.” Kunde replied, “Well, I can’t do anything about it now because the dork [i.e. April] is with us.” Kunde and Beuse proceeded to do yard work in Folletts, eat at a restaurant, shop in Clinton, and visit Beuse’s parents before returning to their home in LeClaire that evening.
Cole testified that on April 3 he did a carpentry job in Clinton and had a co-worker drop him off at the cabin around 4:00 p.m. Cole did not drive and did not have a vehicle at the cabin. Once at the cabin he cleaned up some brush, trimmed trees, cleaned inside the cabin, ate supper and watched some television. He fell asleep around 7:00 p.m. with the television still on, though he got up later and shut if off. He testified that apart from the television, the lights were off once he went to bed.
Kunde testified that on the evening of April 3 he left his house in LeClaire around 9:30 p.m. in his truck and drove to the B S bar in Folletts, a drive which takes approximately fifteen minutes, and arrived there at about 9:45. Cheryl Brotherton was tending bar at the B S that night. She testified at trial that Kunde did not arrive at the bar until around 11:00 p.m. She also stated that as she was closing out the cash register that night around midnight Kunde bought a gallon can of Ozark Trail camping fuel and a quart of oil. She and Kunde then left the bar together sometime between midnight and 12:30 a.m.
Kunde, however, testified that he asked Brotherton about a can of kerosene but did not buy it because he thought it was too expensive. He also stated he left the bar by himself about 11:35 p.m. and got home around 11:50 p.m., but that Brotherton stayed to finish her work at the bar. Kunde admitted his route home took him past the Hill cabin but he testified he did not stop at the cabin and had no idea Cole or anyone else was staying there.
Cole testified that during the night he was awakened by a noise and the motion detector light coming on. He heard a crackling sound, saw smoke, and looked out the window to see Kunde standing at the bottom of the steps that lead up to the deck of the cabin, looking up at the deck. He stated that Kunde was in the area illuminated by the motion detector light and so he had no doubt Kunde was the person he saw. There was an explosion and Kunde ran for his truck, which Cole recognized as Kunde’s truck, and took off on the gravel road heading toward the highway. Cole grabbed a rag to open the front door because it was hot, and by the time he got outside Kunde was heading south on the highway.
Cole stated that flames were going all the way up on the outside of the door and there was a gas can sitting right in front of the door on the deck. Cole began to throw buckets of water on the fire and eventually hooked up the hose to get the fire under control. He also kicked the gas can partway down the steps. Two men who saw the fire from the highway stopped to help and called 911.
The first deputy was dispatched to the scene at 12:19 a.m. Investigators found two matchbooks in front of the door to the cabin and a burned can of Ozark Trail camp fuel on the steps. The door of the cabin was blackened and the wood around it was charred, as was the soffit above the door.
Beuse testified that a few days after the fire she heard rumors that Kunde had been involved and confronted him about the camping fuel. She stated Kunde admitted to her he had bought a can of fuel, and stated it was in his truck. However, he could not produce it for her.
The State charged Kunde, by trial information, with arson in the first degree. Jury trial ensued. Kunde timely moved for a judgment of acquittal on the first-degree arson count, contending there was insufficient evidence and asking the court to find there was only sufficient evidence presented by the State on arson in the second degree. More specifically he argued the State failed to meet its burden to prove Kunde had any idea someone was in the cabin, the fourth element required to prove first-degree arson and the element which differentiates it from second-degree arson. The court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal, finding the evidence presented did generate a jury question on this element. The jury found Kunde guilty as charged and the court sentenced him to a term of incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years.
Kunde appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for arson in the first degree.
II. SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW.
Our scope of review and many of the standards of review that apply in sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges are set forth i State v. Webb, 648 N.W.2d 72, 75-76 (Iowa 2002) and need not be repeated here. The following additional standards are applicable as well. Inherent in our standard of review of jury verdicts in criminal cases is the recognition that the jury was free to reject certain evidence, and credit other evidence. State v. Anderson, 517 N.W.2d 208, 211 (Iowa 1994). A jury is free to believe or disbelieve any testimony as it chooses and to give as much weight to the evidence as, in its judgment, such evidence should receive. State v. Liggins, 557 N.W.2d 263, 269 (Iowa 1996); State v. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d 670, 673 (Iowa 1993).
III. MERITS.
Kunde’s brief may be read as arguing not only that the evidence was insufficient to show he could have reasonably anticipated the presence of a person in the property and thus insufficient to prove him guilty of first-degree arson, but also arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show he was the person who set the fire and therefore insufficient to find him guilty of any degree of arson. However, in his motion for judgment of acquittal Kunde presented only the first of these two arguments.
Issues must be presented to and ruled upon by the trial court before they can be raised and decided on appeal. Metz v. Amoco Oil Co., 581 N.W.2d 597, 600 (Iowa 1998); Conner v. State, 362 N.W.2d 449, 457 (Iowa 1985). We do not consider issues not presented to or decided by the district court in the first instance. State v. Gogg, 561 N.W.2d 360, 368 (Iowa 1997). Kunde’s motion for judgment of acquittal did not argue the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator of the arson, and the trial court did not address or decide such an issue. Kunde asserted only that the evidence was insufficient to prove first-degree arson because the State failed to show he could reasonably have anticipated the presence of a person in the cabin. This is also the only issue the trial court ruled upon. Therefore, we conclude this is the only issue preserved for our review.
When the record contains substantial evidence, we are bound by the jury’s finding of guilt. State v. Button, 622 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Iowa 2001). Substantial evidence is evidence which could convince a rational trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Sutton, 636 N.W.2d 107, 110
(Iowa 2001). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude the evidence in the record was sufficient to convince a rational factfinder that Kunde could have reasonably anticipated Cole was in the cabin at the time of the fire.
First, and perhaps most importantly, there is evidence in the record that Kunde saw Cole at the cabin on the day of the fire. Beuse testified that when she and Kunde were driving by the cabin Beuse’s daughter April pointed out that Cole was there and Kunde stated he could not do anything about it at the time because April was with them. Kunde did testify he had driven by the cabin four times on April 3 and twice the day before. In addition, Cole testified that he was familiar with Kunde’s truck and saw him drive by at least twice either on April 3 or the day before. One of the times Cole saw him drive by Cole stated he was on the deck of the cabin and saw that Kunde’s girlfriend was with him.
Second, Lyons testified she had told Kunde that Cole was back in town. Kunde seemed interested in that fact and asked if she knew where he was staying, but she did not. Kunde had proceeded to tell Lyons he had been looking for Cole for some time because Cole had been out of town and owed him money. Beuse confirmed that Kunde had been very upset about the fact Cole owed him money from the siding job, that he talked about it a lot, and had been looking for Cole but could not find him.
Thus, despite Kunde’s assertion that he never saw Cole at the cabin any of the times he drove by and had no idea he was at the cabin, a reasonable factfinder could have found Kunde had in fact seen Cole there on one or more recent occasions, including on April 3, and could have reasonably anticipated Cole’s presence at the time of the fire. As set forth above, a jury is free to believe or disbelieve any testimony as it chooses and to give as much weight to the evidence as, in its judgment, such evidence should receive. Liggins, 557 N.W.2d at 269.
Finally, Kunde testified that he would have no reason or motivation to burn Hill’s cabin. As set forth above, Kunde’s motion for judgment of acquittal did not challenge the evidence that he was the perpetrator of the arson, but instead only challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he could have reasonably anticipated Cole’s presence in the cabin. The jury could reasonably find that if Kunde had no other reason to burn Hill’s cabin, then the only reason he did so was because he believed Cole was there and he was still upset at him for not paying him the money he believed he was owed.
IV. CONCLUSION.
We conclude the evidence in the record was sufficient to convince a rational factfinder that Kunde could have reasonably anticipated Cole was in the cabin at the time of the fire. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support Kunde’s conviction for arson in the first degree. The trial court did not err in denying Kunde’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
AFFIRMED.